a^^^HO 



a THE 

STORY OF MY FIRST 
INVENTION 



MS 

fl 






ILLUSTRATED 



COPYRIGHT 1913 

BY HENRY C. THOMSON 

BOSTON, MASS., U.S.A. 



I? m 



m 



<?^ 



©GU358294 






The Story of My First Invention 

Sometimes when I let my mind wander back to the time I made 
my first invention, twenty-odd years ago, the circumstances sur- 
rounding it seem like the memory of a vivid dream. How well I 
remember my varying moods of hope and despair, the pleasure of 
expectation, and the bitterness of failure; my original idea of the 
soundness of my beliefs, and at last the conviction of my erring 
judgment; the strong impression I held at first that the Legal Aspect 
(the Patent) was the all-important factor, but which slowly died, 
to be replaced eventually by an unalterable belief, which years of 
practical experience have confirmed, that I was wrong. My sub- 
sequent business life — inventing, manufacturing, and selling — com- 
bined with my professional duties, proved to my satisfaction that 
the Commercial Aspect, rather than the Patent, is of primary and 
greatest importance. 

I can smile now and charge it ofl to experience, the kind of 
experience worth while, because dearly bought, and in my case 
profited by, but, oh ! how serious it was then. No one, unless he 
has been through a similar experience, can realize the mental 
anguish I experienced when I came to a full appreciation of the 
fact that, instead of being well started on the road to fortune, I 
had been wending my way along a blind alley which terminated 
in a brick wall. I had spent every dollar of my money, and all I 
could borrow of my friends, and at the end had nothing to show 
for it but two sheets of parchment paper tied with a blue ribbon, 
with a red seal af^xed ; in other words, what Uncle Sam designates 
as "Letters Patent," the most deceiving document (to the ordinary 
individual) of any "grant" issued by the United States Government, 
one which, while seemingly giving you the exclusive right to "make, 
use, and vend" your invention, qualifies that right by that tantaliz- 
ing word — IF — which, while not expressed in print may stand 
like a sentinel to restrain your progress. 

On page 2 is shown a reduced f ac-simile — a reproduction of 
one of my patents — showing where the words "exclusive right to 
make, use and vend" appear. The underscoring is by the author, 
to enable you to more easily find the location. I also call your 
attention to the words "an alleged" and "improvement" around 
which I have ruled a line just above "Eye Glasses," the title of the 
invention. 

The restriction carried by this implied word IF, combined with 
the inability of ordinary Patent Attorneys to aopreciate the all 
important Commercial Factor of invention, and thus help to guide 
their client In the right direction, has proven to be two of the prin- 
cipal reasons for the undoing financially of verily tens of thousands, 
and mentally of many hundreds of honest men, trying to acquire 
a competence from the creations of their own intellects. 

1 



-:.^»^#»^ 




Sb 1i|1 lii>flipi|J||fSf prrsriiis shed! c^^fiic^- 

u , llii ifnnil ./ hth,^J\itfiif A \,tn <iU,ii<7\ inii HtiJ ii,ujtti \iim>((>Utlltni\ iit 




n ,1, ,,iihUt n <: iil'i,h itin iUi"iiVi ' ft iihuind III iL >h<< hu nil, n > j u (uJi 
,>iil..l',Ji.,.Jnl, innunJ .inJ nu,J, ., /uni /u , n > a'nfl. f , i In/iliiJ 
tiijh t'l, I,! < , II , ,t/;in ti iin iii > I > Jtii>'tti mi i> < ii u i nitiilt <i ml ji n i u nl iltKi 

lUhm.U-. ■:•.» J,n >.,i>,<nulti,ii nnitL M. nniULiniionl ,U/i,Jiinl,i,.l 
h >, jn... ; . >il,lL ./ U a Klh ui X .,v// / //. /.//, 
I ^//- ///.////'/^^ lL^^t^tt^,%^nWt^V^^^% n,, (, ii<iih( nni, llii >iH,/ 

ftt/'l.) c'l lti.>tl!il-l 



(JS/^yUUuipSmMm _, , ,,rij.iin.ujn. 

jcijlu (lAn, il .iirin/r^H uuii.jiunllitlMfMM^lU/ryUi^ '/^"/ '/ 
^mOll ^ 1.^. Il...unui iJr hniiihiJ luiijtm ' 

l/uh.ufi/,fii iujhl f> i{i'il'< . /'>/ uii'l >ni<! l!i< .uiul nin nlirri llrn tujlu lit ili< 



(t,nJ<iiJ .^'n.Jiln ii.il ijil.. jJatcnt (Ot'fUT 

feg^ , ijj lioj ,ii ilii / //// // jII^/ > A ////■/// // 

fit ijKih ij III, J,iJ tiK W, i/n'>iJ iui,> lni)i^ 
y (iiiiiwn < till (f 

.'h„t,j,nul,i<i, .j tin lll'itiil iKil. > <! ' li„i,l,;i 
/In iih luitiilinl ,llnl tii.nhi uxlli 



./ v:.^. 



REPRODUCTION OF TITLE-PAGE OF A UNITED STATES PATENT 

The above is a reproduction of the title-page of a United States Patent. 
The constitutional provision for the granting of a Patent was given in 
Art. 1, Sec 8. "The Congress shall have power ... to promote the prog- 
ress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors 
and Inventors the EXCLUSIVE Right to their respective Writings and Dis- 
coveries." The Patent Office is a part of the Department of the Interior. 



I CONCEIVE AN IDEA 

My first invention was not one of those studiously thought 
out ideas, where, knowing the necessity of improvement, as the 
Patent Law puts it, "of a new and useful art, machine, manufacture, 
etc.," the inventor works on it, and by a slow, step-by-step process 
gradually evolves a means of accomplishment, but was one that 
came to me instantly. 

When I was engaged in manufacturing, that was before I be- 
came an attorney, I generally had to work long and faithfully on 
an idea before the complete conception and final construction was 
evolved in my mind. Notwithstanding the fact that I have had 
granted me by the United States and Foreign Patent Offices, 
twenty-seven patents. 

This first invention makes a story which I hope the reader will 
find not only interesting, but instructive. It is not an unusual story 
from the commercial side, but is somewhat out of the ordinary 
from the number of legal difficulties encountered. 

My first inventive idea was an inkstand. It flashed into being 
as I one day asked myself this question, "Why couldn't an inkstand 
be improved by providing a means for keeping the pen-point in the 
ink while not in use, and in a position where the pen could be 
grasped instantly and used without the necessity of redipping the 
pen?" I also wondered whether this method would not, in addition 
to this advantage, overcome the objectionable feature that ink will 
dry on a pen that is laid aside and require cleaning before it can 
be used. 

The idea looked good to me, and I had a zinc model made and 
tried it for a number of weeks. It worked satisfactorily during 
my test, and every day seemed to grow brighter for me. I com- 
menced to build castles in the air, to figure out how many persons 
probably used inkstands, how many I ought to sell, and at what 
price, to calculate what my profits from the sale of them ought to 
bring from year to year, and, I am ashamed to admit even now, 
to ponder over what I would do with the money. 

The house and stable and grounds I had built in my mind's eye 
out of anticipated profits from its sale never materialized, because 
of the unforeseen happenings which followed, and were not acquired 
until success was achieved from later inventions. In reality, the 
house I came very near being an inmate of, after my first experi- 
ence, was the poorhouse. 

Foolish young man that I was, I showed the invention first to 
my friends, took counsel from them, and made no effort to become 
informed on the many complex problems in connection with pat- 
entable invention. When they, figuratively, patted me on the back 
and said my invention was "the finest ever," that it was "the best 
inkstand ever invented," and made other similar remarks of com- 
mendation, my enthusiasm knew no bounds, and I saw the fortune 
I had accumulated in my mind nearer reality than ever, almost in 
the bank and ready for me to draw upon. 

Why this exuberance of spirits, this growing belief in my im- 
portance in the inventive field? 

Because I was inexperienced and did not seek advice where I 
might expect to receive criticism. I was in the mental condition 
of many, perhaps I might say most, inventors, with their first 
Patent. I did not want criticism, and considered knowledge of 
Patents unnecessary. I failed to seek advice where my construction 
would be carefully inspected as a cold-blooded business proposition, 



minus the enthusiasm and hopes I had put into it myself. I did 
not make this investigation, for it did not then seem worth while. 
I argued myself into the belief that my own tests were fair ones, 
and that my friends' opinions were sound. 

I have since learned that an inventor's best friends are many 
times his worst enemies. They invariably express their approval 
of one's efforts, making no criticism for fear of wounding his 
feelings. 

As the result of my long experience, I want to suggest that 
when you show an idea to a friend, something which has appealed 
to you as being worth while, something in which you have dis- 
covered novelty and advantage, reverse the usual question, which 
is, "Don't you think this is a pretty good thing?" by simply explain- 
ing to him the advantages you believe exist in your construction, 
and then end the conversation on the matter with this question, 
*'Will you think my idea over and see if you can find any 'bug' 
(defect) in it?" 

He will do you a great service if he does this, while he may do 
you lasting injury if he commends your idea. To agree with an- 
other requires no exercise of the mind, but to differ, with an ability 
to state why, one must employ judgment and give careful con- 
sideration to a subject. 

Two of my pet maxims, based on experience, are: 

(i) "Search for defects, the advantages will take care of 
themselves." 

(2) "Welcome criticism, it has helped perfect many an 
invention." 

In addition, have in mind, that if the public does not imme- 
diately find an existing defect or disadvantage, your competitor 
soon will and quickly inform the public. 

I CONSULT AN ATTORNEY 

About this time I came to the conclusion that I ought to con- 
sult a Patent Attorney. I had secured pamphlets from the several 
Washington attorneys who advertised, and had received the usual 
mass of literature, which, after reading, convinced me then (it did 
not later) more than ever, that I was on the "Royal Road to 
Fortune" through my invention, and frightened me into the belief 
that every one to whom I showed my model was immediately going 
to steal it from me. I have since learned that the chances of a per- 
son to whom you show an invention stealing it, are so remote and 
so little to be feared, that it hardly need be considered (unless you 
are working with another), for it happens about as often as. chil- 
dren are kidnaped, and that is about one in every million. 

In addition to writing to the Patent Attorneys who advertise, 
I also looked up local Patent Attorneys, and had a talk with several, 
both as regards the cost of taking a Patent and the method of 
procedure. 

At last I decided on one who was recommended to me, showed 
him my model, and explained its operation and its advantages over 
other inkstands. His conversation still further impressed me with 
the value of my invention. It wouldn't be fair to his memory 
(for he is since deceased) to say he intended to deceive me; it was 
not exactly that, but what served its purpose even worse, for it was 
a certain quiet acceptance, and thereby approval of the advantages 
I claimed by an occasional nod and a rather enthusiastic "Yes, yes," 
as I mentioned one after another the advantages I believed existed 



in my construction. His attitude carried conviction and combined 
with it a certain amount of flattery, which was, as I must admit, 
acceptable and pleasurable to me in those days. 

His position, however, was nothing to the flattering deceit 
practiced by certain Washington Patent Attorneys, who advertise 
extensively. One wrote me, when I took up an investigation of 
all attorneys who advertise, to learn how they were conducting 
business, as follows : I quote his exact words, "I have felt all 
along that you have an invention worth while; one that is patent- 
able and promises success." 

Could there be a more reprehensible method of trying to sep- 
arate an inventor from the money representing the cost of a Patent? 
In point of fact I had never even suggested to him that I even 
had an invention. I simply asked him for his booklet. 

I remember I went home and thought the whole situation over, 
and believed I was acting wisely and conservatively when I laid 
down $50 ($15 for the first Government fee and $35 for the attor- 
ney's fee and the drawings) on the attorney's table and told him 
to go ahead. I confess that $50 looked big to me in those days; 
but as I felt that it was the forerunner of a fortune, I did not 
begrudge it. 

My Patent application was filed in December and ^'allowed" 
(the term used by the Patent Office when a Patent is ready to issue) 
in the spring of the following year. My attorney suggested taking 
advantage of the fact that a Patent after being allowed by the 
examiner may remain in the Patent Office six months before it must 
be issued, which in my case occurred the following December. 

While my Patent was under consideration in the Patent Office, 
I was making further experiments with my device, trying to deter- 
mine how I should actually manufacture it. 

This is what I should have done before I had spent a dollar 
on a Patent application, as experience has taught me since. As it 
was, after I had decided on the exact size of my ink receptacle, I 
consulted a number of glass manufacturers and found, much to my 
surprise and dismay, that the model construction I had had made 
in zinc was impossible to mold in glass, although I had been in- 
formed by my model-maker that it was practicable. 

An illustration of my first construction is given on page 6. 
I was caught as thousands of other inventors have been, before and 
since, who depend upon glass for their construction (non-refiUable 
bottles are a good example), only to find later that it "would not 
mold." 

The same difficulty frequently arises in casting metals. An 
inventor will make his model and find that patterns made accord- 
ingly cannot be removed from the sand, possibly requiring a differ- 
ent construction, which would not conform to his Patent claim. 

Figuratively speaking, the day I learned of my inability to mold 
my device, cold sweat stood prominently on my forehead, for then 
I discovered, as the slang phrase puts it, I was **up against it." I 
had already spent in models and attorneys' fees over $200, and here 
I was with something which could not be made in glass, the only 
material which it seemed to me would make a satisfactory con- 
struction. 

Perhaps you may suggest that after I had discovered this diffi- 
culty I should have given up the scheme as a failure, but I am 
naturally persistent, and I had a firm belief that the principle of 
keeping the pen-point always in the ink, with the pen in position to 
be instantly grasped, filled with ink, was a good one, so it led me to 

5 




AUTHOR'S FIRST MODEL OF HIS INKSTAND 



FAKE SEARCH" EXPOSE 



On page 9 will be found a reproduction of a drawing (a dupli- 
cate of the Patent illustrated on page 8) sent to six Washington 
attorneys who advertise to make "Free Searches." This term mean- 
ing to compare the inventor's drawing with Patents already issued. 

Each of the SIX was asked whether they deemed the construc- 
tion patentable, and each requested to make a search of the Patent 
Office records to ascertain whether the idea was original. 

Reader. Think over the following statement carefully when you 
are tempted to put your invention in the care of such vultures. 

EVERY ONE of these six— shall I, or not, call them "crooks"?— 
stated that not only did they consider the construction patentable, 
but that NOTHING SIMILAR HAD EVER BEEN PATENTED. 
Some even commented on its originality. 

Whose pocketbooks do you believe they were thinking about? 
What is the object of the "free search," "no Patent no pay schemes"? 
Answer ! To get your money, and — mark you ! there is a "string'' 
on every "refund your money" scheme stronger than the cable that 
holds the mightiest ocean liner to her dock. 



seek some other construction in which I could retain the same 
principle. 

I DEVISE A NEW FORM 

Just before the expiration of the six months allowed by the 
Government before the final fee must be paid, I devised a new method 
of construction, shown on page 8, that overcame the objections 
I have just explained, but that presented, however, another very 
serious matter for my consideration. Here I was with a Patent 
already allowed, upon which I must pay $20, in order for it to issue, 
and a new scheme which meant an extra expenditure of $75 more. 

Talk about calculation by a financier, I can assure you, that I 
found it a much more difificult problem to finance this situation 
than some promoters would in floating bonds for millions of dollars. 
I was buoyed up to a certain extent by tales of inventors who had 
been through the same financial struggle, and had won out, but 
it did not change the condition of my cash account at that par- 
ticular moment. 

Fortunately, my Patent Attorney did not suggest that I procure 
a loan from my friends, making an assignment of a portion of my 
Patent in exchange for the accommodation. This abominable prac- 
tice was not in vogue as much at that time as it is at the present 
day. Now it is advocated by attorneys who do not care how much 
the interest of their clients is injured or destroyed, if they secure 
their fees for procuring the Patent and drawing the assignment. 

My attorney advised, and at last I agreed to pay the $20 and 
allow my first Patent to issue. He gave as a reason that as long as 
I had already spent $55 in the first construction, I had better pay 
the remaining $20 to keep any one else from using it. I now 
realize, however, that I was literally throwing the money away, 
although at that time I was in such a quandary I did not know how 
to proceed in order to serve my own best interests. 

I had arrived at a point in my experience where my friends 
could not help me further by any suggestions, while the only attor- 
ney whom I knew other than my Patent Attorney, stated that he 
could not form any opinion of what I should do, as "he did not 
know anything about Patents." I was now, as the saying goes, 
"between the devil and the deep sea" ; if I gave up now I should 
surely lose all I had put in. If I kept on I might succeed. 

After much deliberation I chose the latter course, as it seemed 
to me I ought to be able to make a success, for I was confident my 
second construction was more practical than the first. In other 
words, my decision was in line with my hopes, and I gave my 
Patent Attorney $50 additional for my second Patent. 

After I had started my second Patent application, it occurred 
to me that I might have cast a screw in the base of the inkwell in 
the first construction, which would have allowed the plunger to be 
raised or depressed at will, and then have made a separate cover 
which would have overcome the glass-molding objection. I con- 
sulted with my Patent Attorney in relation to this change, and was 
much surprised when he told me that this construction would not 
be covered by the claims of my Patent, which restricted the con- 
trol of the plunger to "Springs a, b" supported in "Chamber A." 

I told him I could not understand any such restrictions being 
necessary. He commenced to explain the principle of Patents and 
the law of invention, very little of which I could understand. 
Naturally my untrained mind could not absorb and appreciate 
such a complicated subject in such a short space of time. 

7 



(No Model.) 



H. 0. THOMSON. 

ADJUSTABLE PEN REST FOR INKSTANDS. 



No. 11.112. 



Reissued Sept. 23, 1890« 




JPig^S. 






Tig, 4^. 



Ini/entor y 



AUTHOR'S FINAL MODEL OF INKSTAND 








U) /A^ O^^i'^ yy^ (Z^^^^ /(yi/iy /tyyly?L^y^^^(yufA X^ 

DRAWING USED IN ENSNARING FAKE "SEARCH" 
SCHEME ATTORNEYS 

See page 6 for a description of the method used to expose 
these crooks. 



I left his office, and upon reaching home tried to bring to 
mind as much of his explanation as possible, and to reason out 
in a way which would seem sensible to me as many of the im- 
portant points as I could remember. I grasped fairly well his 
explanation of how the claims were originated (the most impor- 
tant part of a Patent), that they were created from the "Specifica- 
tions*' — that is, descriptions of the method of construction and 
operation of an invention, and then I commenced to wonder why 
he had not so constructed my claim that the change I desired 
would come within what is termed ''the scope of the Patent/' 

My naturally analytical mind began to work on the problem, 
and the next day, when I called upon him, I asked him why he 
had not made the claim in such a way that some other method 
of supporting the plunger could be utilized. His reply amounted 
to an evasion, for he said that I had not told him that the 
plunger could be controlled by any other means. 

I presume that this statement has been made thousands of 
times to as many inventors, who have asked similar questions 
after their Patents have been granted, and who did not know, as 
I did not at the time, that it was an attorney's business to study 
the device sufficiently to ascertain that some other construction 
was possible than the specific method employed by the inventor. 

Of course, it is not always possible to provide for changes 
in construction, as some inventions are so similar to prior ones 
that they must necessarily be restricted to the exact methods 
described; but in my case it was possible. The attitude of my 
attorney then seemed singular to me, but it is perfectly clear 
to me now. 

An ordinary Patent Attorney deals with the subject of a 
Patent entirely from a theoretical standpoint, something apart 
from the practical. The influence constantly exerted over him 
by his environment makes it impossible for him to surround 
himself with the atmosphere of an inventor. The drawing and 
the words describing the invention form the extent of his view- 
point. He sees the actual device based on the drawing as through 
a glass darkly. The different parts of the constructed whole 
appear to him merely as symbols representing something he must 
embody in "claims," not as an operative device, which must per- 
form its functions properly and be sold at a profit. He does not 
appreciate in prosecuting the application in the Patent Office the 
intimate and reciprocal relations existing between the theoretical 
and practical, but too often considers them as being separate and 
distinct. Still, how can it be expected he should look at the sub- 
ject from any other standpoint, from his limited knowledge of 
the practical. 

After looking over the new application I told him I hoped 
he would see that I received as strong claims as possible in the 
second Patent. This one was issued in the June of the following 
year, during which time I had been busy developing my con- 
struction as opportunity offered, for I was employed at the time. 
It was much more practical than my first, as it did not involve the 
necessity of my manufacturing the inkwell proper, as I had 
arranged to attach my device to the neck of the ordinary type 
of square glass inkstand. 

In considering the question, as to how much protection I was 
going to secure on my latter Patent, I came to the conclusion 
that I ought to learn something about Patent Law and Practice 
myself, in order to get acquainted with the same. I therefore 

10 



started a course of reading on the subject. I perused *'Walker," 
a well-known authority on Patent Law, and other authorities, and 
made an effort to analyze the ''claims" of my second Patent in 
the light of the knowledge I had acquired. 

The result of my study showed me that in the "claims" reside 
the principal strength of a Patent, and that these so-called "claims" 
consist of the essential parts of the construction (termed "ele- 
ments"), arranged and described in their natural sequence, which 
when read as a whole, including the usual explanatory or "limit- 
ing" phrases, describe the construction. 

I laboriously dissected the claims of my Patent, dividing or 
sorting out the different "elements" of each claim, arranging them 
so I could consider them, but not in the most convenient or com- 
prehensive manner, as I did not at the time know of the best 
method. 

After a careful study, which consumed many of my evenings, 
I was ready to put the following questions to myself, and to try 
and answer them before I brought the matter to the attention of 
my attorney. 

(i) "What have you got in these claims that is worth 
while?" (2) "How easy would it be for an infringer to evade 
the Patent, and how would he probably do it?" 

To form an unbiased opinion it became absolutely necessary, 
as you will appreciate, for me to assume a state of mind diamet- 
rically opposed to my own interests. This, as you will admit, 
must have been exceedingly difficult, when I was so carried away 
at that time with the importance of my invention; but after much 
effort, I managed to test my Patent claims from this necessary 
standpoint. 

I might say here that I found this acquired ability to 
assume an absolutely unbiased position in Patent matters very 
useful in later years. 

I first commenced, in my effort to demolish my own Patent, 
to disassociate for the time being the exact mechanical construc- 
tion I had devised from the mechanical drawing of the Patent, 
for it was the latter, as defined in the claims, which would be 
considered by the Court, should it ever be necessary for me to 
test the strength of my Patent against an infringer. I utilized 
the first crude analysis I had made of the claims to assist me in 
trying to evade the claims of my Patent; that is, to secure the 
same result by some other means. 

As you may have forgotten, I will reiterate that the basic 
principle of my invention was that of keeping the pen-point in 
the inkwell, and constantly in contact with the ink when the pen 
was not in use, combined with a means of varying the position 
of the parts which supported the pen. 

Now it is a well-established fact, that if one "element" in 
every claim, which would otherwise infringe, is eliminated (that 
is, left out), the Patent as a whole is evaded, or overcome, and 
any construction which does not contain this "element" would 
not infringe. In other words, the task I had before me, in my 
endeavor to evade my own Patent, was to eliminate, if possible, 
one "element" in the first four claims; and after some study I 
succeeded in doing so. 

There is another and more intricate method of securing the 
same result, which, because of its complication, I will not try 
to explain here. 

The conclusion forced upon me, after seemingly evading my 

11 



own Patent, was that the claims must be extremely weak, and I 
realized that if this conclusion to which I had arrived was sub- 
stantiated by my Patent Attorney, the Patent, so far as any real 
protection that I could expect the Courts would give me, was not 
worth the paper it was printed upon, for if the Patent, as drawn, 
would not restrain any one who might desire to make an inkstand 
from securing the advantage of the method I had discovered, it 
had no real value. 

This condition would, of course, have been improved by tak- 
ing out a Patent on every form which I could have devised, in 
which the principle of my device could be retained; but as you can 
readily understand it would take a large sum of money to accom- 
plish this, and it would always be probable that still another means 
might be devised to evade my Patent. 

However, narrow claims are not always necessarily weak. 
For example : in the celebrated solid rubber vehicle-tire infringe- 
ment case, the invention was in a so-termed "crowded prior art," 
several Patents had been issued, both here and abroad, showing 
wheels with metallic rims with grooves into which rubber tires 
having internal retaining wires were fitted. The ^'elements" were 
narrowed by numerous limiting phrases ; but, — and here is the gist 
of the situation, the particular arrangement shown in the inven- 
tion, was the so-termed "last step," which resulted in the con- 
struction meeting almost universal acceptance and employment. 
It marked the difference between failure and success, it attained 
an end not secured by anything in the "prior art," and caused 
Justice McKenna of the Supreme Court to aptly say : 

"Knowledge after the event is always easy, and 
problems once solved present no difficulties, indeed, 
may be represented as never having had any." 

MY REISSUED PATENT 

Once more I had arrived at a stage in my business and Patent 
career where my hopes seemed completely dashed to the ground, 
my castles in the air floating away, and an impossible barrier 
presented to any further effort; but as I am not built on the 
give-up plan, it occurred to me that I had read in one of the 
Patent books I had consulted, something about a method of re- 
issuing a Patent, and I proceeded to consult the law on Patents 
again, to ascertain under what circumstances a Patent could be 
re-issued, and I came to the conclusion it could be accomplished 
in my case if it could be proven, in the phraseology of the Rules 
of Practice, "an error had occurred by reason of a deficient or 
insufficient specification." 

You will thoroughly appreciate that by this time I had lost 
about all the confidence I had in the ability of my Patent Attor- 
ney; but as I had no one in mind from whom I could gain more 
knowledge, I was obliged to call on him in reference to the 
situation that I thought I had developed; in other words, that my 
Patent was worse than useless. 

During my talk with him in regard to the case, I found him 
loath to admit that the conditions as I saw them with my inexpe- 
rienced knowledge were really the true conditions. However, 
after a discussion and a statement by me that I intended to con- 
sult another Patent Attorney, he acknowledged that I was right. 
I asked him again why he did not draw a claim which admitted 

12 



of the rest being elevated or depressed without any specific method 
being mentioned, particularly after I had asked him to try and 
secure a strong Patent? To which he replied, "He did not know 
as he could draw one to meet my wishes." And I distinctly 
remember going to another desk and attempting to put into words 
a claim which would mention the rest element and not specifically 
include the arm, the nut, and the screw. I succeeded to the extent 
that the claim No. 5 of my Patent, as finally reissued (given 
below), was practically my own origination, except for some slight 
changes in phraseology made by the attorney after I had drawn 
it up in the rough : 

CLAIM NO. 5, REISSUED PATENT NO. 11,112 

"In combination with an Inkwell the 'resf sus- 
tained in said well so as to be variable in altitude 
therein, and adapted to support a pen with relation 
to the ink in said well." 

If you will carefully study this claim, you will note that the 
rest is the only defined "element," no specific or particular method 
is mentioned as a means to support it; in other words, my effort 
resulted in a very broad claim. An infringer would be unable 
to utilize any method to vary the position of the rest (which to 
be operative must be varied) without infringing this claim. The 
other four claims of the reissued application were the original 
claims of my second Patent, and as already described, could be 
easily evaded, and were therefore of no value. It would have 
been the fifth claim — that is, the new one — upon which I would 
have had to rely if it had been necessary to have made an effort 
to restrain an infringer. 

I do not wish any reader to understand that I believe such a 
flagrant succession of errors of judgment and lack of knowledge 
is a customary practice with reputable Patent Attorneys. I, how- 
ever, was particularly unfortunate. Nor do I wish it to be assumed 
that broad claims are easy, or always possible to secure. The 
breadth of a claim in a Patent is governed by what is called the 
"prior state of the part," that is, how many Patents have already 
been issued on similar devices.^ Nothing can be claimed that will 
be allowed by the Patent Examiner in Washington who has charge 
of your Patent, if the same improvement is shown in a prior 
Patent. 

The application for the reissued Patent made another dent in my 
money pile, for notwithstanding the fact that the error was the attor- 
ney's, I was obliged to stand the cost of the Government fee, 
which was $30, for , reopening the case and issuing the reissue 
Patent. I presume I should have considered myself fortunate in 
not having to pay the attorney his fee for filing it; but he was con- 
siderate enough to do the work without expense to me. 

I was never sorry afterwards for all this tribulation and 
trouble, for the knowledge and experience I acquired served me well 
in my later employment as an inventor and manufacturer of pat- 
ented products, while in addition it also gave me a greater desire 
for a more thorough knowledge of the many complications of 
Patent Law% which I later acquired by further study. 

As it may be interesting to the reader, a reduced reproduc- 
tion of the drawing and specification, including the claims of my 
Inkstand Patent, are given on page 15. The Patent Office rules 

13 



state that "the drawing must show every feature of the invention 
covered by the claims, and the figures should be consecutively 
numbered. Various rules are made referring to size of drawing, 
the kind of paper and ink, character of the line, shading, reference 
letters, etc., in order that all Patent drawings shall conform to 
the Patent Office standard. 

The rules in reference to the specifications are that the 
different sections must succeed each other as follows : 

(i) Preamble, stating name and address of the applicant and 
the title of the invention. (2) General statement of the object 
of the invention. (3) Brief description of the several views of 
the drawing. (4) Detailed description. (5) Claims. (6) Sig- 
nature of inventor. ( 7) Signature of two witnesses. Marginal 
reference to these subdivisions are shown in the reproduction of 
the specifications as above mentioned. 

I COMMENCE TO MANUFACTURE 

Patent questions all settled, I gave up my position and com- 
menced in earnest the business of putting my invention in proper 
commercial form. This involved, even for such a small device, 
much thought and deliberation as to its exact form, the materials 
for constructing the different parts, and the method of assembling. 
After all these details were decided upon, I placed an order for 
one thousand of each part. 

Then I proceeded to write up a description of my inkstand, 
explaining how it was constructed, and mentioning all its advan- 
tages. I deliberated sometime on a Trade-mark name for the 
device, and at last called it the ''Pristine," meaning "original.'* 
It is probable that I could not have registered this mark at the 
Patent Office had I tried, because the law states a Trade-mark 
must not be "descriptive," but may be suggestive. The Patent 
Examiner would claim that the word signified it was the first 
inkstand ever devised, consequently not proper for registration. 
Never utilize or apply a Trade-mark about which there can be any 
question of its proper registration, for while the Patent Examiner 
may grant it, it may be later declared invalid by the Court. 

The inkwell was also illustrated by a well-executed half-tone. 
Then came the question how best to advertise it in order to bring 
it to the attention of the largest number of users of such devices 
quickly. I realized that bookkeepers and clerks in offices would be 
more liable to be interested than any other class; but a difficulty 
presented itself immediately when I found that I could not secure 
a mailing list of them. Some reader may ask why I did not com- 
mence a personal canvass of this class, and I would answer that 
I concluded I could create a quicker and wider interest by adver- 
tising direct to the user. 

After deciding that there was no other means at hand, I per- 
sonally went through every name, in the Boston directory, a city 
at that time with a population of over half a million within a few 
miles of the City Hall, and thus laboriously picked out the indi- 
vidual names and addresses of all bookkeepers named therein. 
As you will admit, a stupendous task, one which I would not un- 
dertake to-day at any price that any one would be willing to pay 
for the undertaking. The tediousness of the work and the eye 
strain involved is indescribable in words. I proceeded to address 
and mail the circulars and anxiously awaited results. 

It was with a great deal of satisfaction that within a month 

14 



United States Patent Office. 

HENRY C. THOMSON, OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. 
ADJirSTABCEnPXlsl^^ST FOTnNKSTANDS. 



SPECIFICATION forming part of Beissued Letters Patent No. 11,1 12, dated September 23, 1890. 

Original No. 430,446, dated June 17, 1890. Application for reissue filed August 16, 1890. Serial No. 362,252.. 



Vo aU whom it may concern: 

Be it known that I, Henry C. Thomson, a 
citizen of- the United States, residing at Bos- 
ton, in the county of Suffolk and State of Mas- 
Isachusetts, have invented certain new and 
useful Improvements in Adjustable Pen- 
Rests for Inkstands; and I do declare the fol- 
lowing to be a full, clear, and exact descrip- 
Ition of the invention, such as will enable oth- 
|ers skilled in the art to which it appertains 
to make and use the same, reference being 
had to the accompanying drawings, and to the 
letters of reference marked thereon, which 
^form a part of this specification. 



Figure 1 is a top or plan view, and Fig. 2 a 
vertical and median section, of an ink-well 
provided with my invention. Fig. 3 is a ver- 
tical section of the pen-rest, taken in a plane 
ftt mgbt angles to that of Fig 2- Fig 4 is ao 
under side view of said pen-rest. 

The objpct of my invention is to provide a 
pen-rest that can be readily applied to ink- 
wells of ordinary construction and sustained 
in the well in such manner as to admit of 
easy adjustment in altitude therein to cause 
the pen when applied to the rest to enter the 
ink in the well the proper distance, to keep 
said pen while in the rest suitably charged 
■with ink and ready for 'use when required. 
The^said pen-rest besides furnisliing a con- 
venient support for the pen also serves to 
nearly close the mouth of the well, and thus 
k giaterially prevents evaporation of the ink. 



In the drawings, A denotes the body or cas- 
ing of an ink-well of common construction, 
and B the well therein, it being surrounded 
at top by a neck a, as usual. Said neck is 
shown- as circular and concentric with the 
well; but it is often made rectangular instead 
of concentric. In either case I surround said 
neck with a band C, to which is fixed an arm 
D, said band and arm being clamped to the 
said neck by a screw E. In the arm D is a 
vertical hole &, in which a screw F is arranged 
to slide, a nut G, screwed on said screw, bear- 
ing on the arm and sustaining in the well the 
pen-rest and closure H, fixed to the lower end 
of the screw F, and by revolving the nut G 
said pen-rest can be raised or lowered in the 
well, as may be desired. 

Within the pen-rest is a mouth or opening 
c to receive the pen, said opening flaring from 
its bottom upward, and usually a passage d 
lea^s through the saidrestand into the open- 
ing c. The bottom of said passage d, being 
horizontal, or thereabout, furnishes a bearing 
for the end of the pen-holder when applied to 
the rest, as represented in Fig. 2, and sup- 
ports it to advantage. The said passage d 
Oiay, however, be dispensed with, the flaring 
mouth c answering to receive and support the 
pen and holder. 



From the foregoing it will be seen that with^ 
my invention applied to an ink-well a pen 
and its holder can be supported inthewellin 
such manner that by turning the nut G the 
rest H will be raised or lowered in the well and 
the said pen made to enter the ink a suitable 
distance to properly supply it with the ink 
and be ready for use w^hen required. This 
way of supporting a pen is a great conven- 
ience and does away with frequent wiping of 
it, for as the pen is kept wet with the ink it- 
cannot dry and thicken on the pen and cause 
it to corrode, as usual, it being intended fllat I 
the pen when in the rest shall enter the ink 
about as represented in Fig. 2, and as the ink ' 
Towers in the well the rest H can be corre- 
spoijdingly lowered by turning the nut G. 
Furthermore, one side of the opening c is in- 
clined, as shown at e, to support the pen or in- 
cline it toward the writer in position to be con- 
Yenient|v grasped Jbv him when required. - 



What I cl^im is^ 

1. The arm D, secured to the well, the screw 
F, arranged to slide in said arm, the rest H, 
fixed to the screw and provided with the flar- 
ing mouth, and the nut G for varying the alti- 
tude of said rest, in combination with an ink- 
well, as and for the purpose set forth. 

2. The arm D, applied to the well and pro- 
vided with the passage &, the screw F, adapted 
to slide therein, the rest H, having the mouth 
c and passage d and fixed to the said screw, 
and the nut G for raising or lowering the rest, 
in combination with an ink-well, as and for 
the purpose explained. . 

3. The combination, with an ink-well, of the 
band C, provided with an arm D and clamp 
screw E, the adjusting-screw F and nut G, and 
the rest H, fixed to screw F and provided with 
an opening to receive and support the pen 
the altitude of the said rest in the well being 
regulated by turning the nut G, as explained. 

4. The pen-rest H, provided with the open- 
ing c, passage d, and incline e, in combination 
with the screw F, fixed thereto, the nut G.the 
arm D, and the ink-well supporting the latter 
^11 essentially as set forth. 

: 5. In combination with an ink-well, the rest 
sustained in said well so as to be variable in 
altitude therein and adapted to support a pe n 
•~' 'rplntion to the i nk in said wpII- .snbstan- 



Slith. 



tiallv as set forth. 

In testimony whereof I affix my Signature ID 
presence of two witnesses. 
HENRY 



C. THOMSON. 
Witnesses: ^'^>— ^^""n/''^ -*— -4-*^ 

S N Piper, «lfiNATUB£OF 
XH.S. Stern, INVENTOH 

siGNATwRe or 

TWO WITNESSES 



^ 



REPRODUCTION OF PATENT «* SPECIFICATIONS" AND < 'CLAIMS' 



15 



I received orders for a number of hundred of my inkstands. 
This sale firmly convinced me that my invention was practicable, 
and that it was to achieve a positive success. With these orders 
I went to the office supply concerns, and on the strength of them, 
tried to secure stock orders for quantities. My strongest argu- 
ments to them were the sales I had already made. 

I found them anything but enthusiastic, and to my surprise 
they wanted a much greater discount from the consumer's price 
than I had anticipated, which would result in cutting my profits 
down to a much lower figure than I had figured on; but believing 
the ultimate profit from the constantly increasing sales, which I 
expected would follow, would be satisfactory, I eventually agreed 
to the discount they desired. Even with this discount I did not 
find them ready to place large orders, and I was obliged to con- 
tent myself with a small stock order from the different concerns. 

As I had not sufficient money for a second thousand, until I 
received the money from the sale of the first thousand, I waited 
to learn the results of the efforts which I had made to place the 
article on the market. Instead of increasing in sale, as I had 
expected would be the results of my circularizing campaign, the 
orders began to decrease. 

I could not realize the reason for this condition at the time; 
but I have since learned, and it is confirmed by the opinion of the 
largest advertising concerns, that after an initial advertising cam- 
paign on almost any article, the first orders come from the ready 
purchasers, that class which will always buy when an advertisement 
reads well. After which a lull usually occurs in the sales. With 
any article of merit and proper backing, this period of decreasing 
sales is but temporary, and is soon followed by a general increase. 

I MEET WITH DIFFICULTIES 

About this time I began to receive requests for the inkstand 
on "trial," and I sent out nearly a hundred under this arrange- 
ment, feeling confident that they would be purchased after the 
advantages were ascertained; but even including these, I had not 
succeeded in selling the full thousand, and I therefore decided 
to visit New York, where I felt confident I could get them started 
and quickly dispose of the balance; but, much to my disappoint- 
ment, I could not sell a sufficient number in that city to even pay 
my expenses from the profits. 

I did not comprehend at the time the reason for my inability 
to do so; but now, as I look back on the situation, I realize I had 
practically no chance to get them introduced there. One of the 
principal reasons being, that they would not buy and put in stock 
any article which had not received the benefit of an extended adver- 
tising campaign by the manufacturer. In this they were even 
more conservative than .the Boston concerns. A number of other 
reasons, too complicated to mention here, increased the difficulty. 
There were also other business conditions which made my selling 
campaign to the jobber less attractive to the buyer than several 
other inkstands on the market. 

I was surprised to learn that these large jobbing houses did 
not seem to be interested as much in the practicability of the article, 
or its advantages to the retail purchaser, as in its ready sale and 
profit. I found it a cold world, and the buyer not influenced by 
any sentimental feelings, and without consideration for my trials 
and tribulations. His only view-point was that of the "almighty 

16 



dollar,'^ and I can thoroughly appreciate, from my later experiences, 
that he was also thinking as much as to whether the goods might 
not some day constitute a dead stock, as he was of the question 
of the profit from the sale. 

I came back to Boston with a heavy heart, and I was gradually 
coming to the conclusion that I could not sell a sufficient number 
to make the business worth while, at any rate, from a jobbing 
standpoint. This condition threw me back on to .the consumer as 
my largest customer. The person who actually used inkstands 
seemed to be my only hope. 

I hired agents on a commission basis ; but while they sold a 
number, the profit was not sufficiently attractive to make them 
stick to the job, and I determined to prove the selling value by 
starting a personal and direct store-to-store selHng campaign 
myself. 

As a result of my eflforts, I found I could not get an oppor- 
tunity to show my device in some of the better offices — many book- 
keepers and clerks were "too busy" to hear my story and try the 
device. The smaller concerns would not pay the price. I made a 
satisfactory income for several weeks from my personal canvass 
in a district where the sales would be more liable, than in any other, 
to be the largest. 

Then I figuratively sat down and pondered what the net results 
would be after I had covered Boston thoroughly, which would be 
in a few more weeks, and my sales would be largely limited to 
those made by the office supply concerns. I could come to no other 
decision, than that it meant I would be obliged to visit other cities 
to increase my sales if I expected to make the business successful. 
This method was, however, impossible, owing to family conditions 
then prevailing. The only recourse in this situation was for me to 
make an efTort to sell my Patent, or have the device manufactured 
under a royalty. I therefore corresponded with a number of con- 
cerns whose business it was to sell Patents, but without results, for I 
could not grant them exclusive selling rights, which at that time 
they insisted upon. I wrote a number of manufacturers of ink- 
stands and office-supply devices, but I could not interest any of 
them in my proposition. I had come, as the saying goes, "to the 
end of my rope." I had failed ignominiously. 

I MAKE A FAILURE 

Reader, — This story is intended to teach a lesson in the ex- 
ploitation of a Patented invention, the more because it is a tale 
of fact and not of fiction, and also because it is a frequent instead 
of a rare occurrence. Such a story of an unsuccessful experience 
rarely appears in print. In fact I know of none other. 

We read of the fortunes made by Singer, Westinghouse, Bell, 
Edison, and others, from their inventions, so enticingly portrayed 
by the "no Patent, no fee" (come into my parlor said the spider to 
the fly) Patent Attorneys. We do not read of the fortunes sunk 
in fruitless inventive effort, for it is very probable that as much 
money has been lost in attempting to put inventions of question- 
able utility on the market as has been made by those that have 
been proven a success. It is but natural that inventors should be 
eager to narrate their successes and loath to record their failures. 
Why, you may ask, do I record mine, when to do so I may lose a 
possible client from my frankness? First, because I realize that 
the average inventor is in poor or moderate circumstances. He 

]7 



cannot afford to lose the amount represented by the fees involved. 
Second, because I should not wish any inventor to go through the 
trials and tribulations I experienced through unpreparedness. 
Third, because he should be informed of the bitter, which will help 
to modify the exaggerated stories of the sweet, which are told 
you by many attorneys, who, in their literature describe the path 
of invention as being figuratively strewn with roses, leading to a 
garden where the most exquisite flowers are to be had for the 
picking. I want to tell you right now that the path is more liable 
to be represented by a macadamized road before it is rolled, and 
is a toss up whether it terminates in the heights of happiness or the 
depths of despair. 

Why did I fail? 

It didn't just happen. There was a reason for it, a determin- 
able one, so clear to me now, that given the same conditions that 
then existed, I am not sure but that with my present knowledge, 
drawn from long experience, I might have been successful. 

The story as it progresses reveals the reason to a thinking 
mind, and may well serve as a test of your own powers of per- 
ception and judgment. 

If you will reread it, and try to determine why, before you 
continue, you will learn the reason. 

I will ask you to start with the assumption that the principle 
of construction was correct, and if you have not already so con- 
cluded, I am confident that you will grant that I possessed a suffi- 
cient amount of energy and perseverance, which, however, you 
must understand constitutes but part of the necessary attributes, 
to the successful outcome of an invention. 

It will no doubt be a surprise to many who may be considering 
patenting an invention to learn, that even with a good principle 
and sufficient energy and perseverance, failure may result; but 
it is not only possible, but it occurs more frequently than one 
would suppose, that an invention, so far as its construction is con- 
cerned, is successful, in that it functions or operates correctly, yet 
proves unsuccessful from a financial standpoint. 

We have all heard how surgeons, after an operation that results 
in the patient's death, maintain vigorously that the operation in 
itself was successful. 

As far as I am able to judge, I attribute, in a general way, 
my failure to the fact that I did not seek authentic information in 
relation to Patents before I attempted to invent ; that I did not have 
the ability in those days to come to a satisfactory conclusion as 
to the best manner for me to proceed; and was unable to apply 
methods of comparison and give due consideration to the diffi- 
culties that arose. 

I can see now, that owing to my untrained mind it was impos- 
sible for me to compare, for I had not had sufficient prior experi- 
ence to furnish me with a means of comparison, and I could not 
consider well, for to do so requires mature thought and a ripened 
experience, in both which I was then lacking. 

This broadly covers the reason for my failure; but in order 
to bring out the moral of my story with its greatest force and 
effectiveness, and to do so in a way that will be best understood 
by every reader, it will be necessary for me to be more specific. 

I ANALYZE MY FAILURE 
I realized, of course, that business judgment must be exercised, 

18 



but I had only a hazy way of looking at the subject. I did not 
appreciate, as I do so fully at the present time, that the knowledge 
of the three important factors — Commercial, Financial, and Legal 
(a working knowledge of Patent Law) — govern the measure of 
success or failure of every invention. 

1 did not comprehend then that each had (i) an individual 
and definite value in the general results, and (2) that combined 
they had an importance which I had neglected to comprehend, 
because of my inability to analyze the whole situation. I grasped 
the fact that I must have a valid Patent, as strong as could be 
had considering prior Patents; that the invention must be made 
and the product sold; that money was needed to conduct the busi- 
ness. But the detailed requirements of each problem were not dis- 
tinct and clearly defined in my mind. With this indistinct con- 
ception of the important factors, I could not understandingly attend 
to the many details in connection therewith. With my untrained 
mind I was groping around in the dark, trying to find success in a 
vague way, instead of realizing that each one of these three ele- 
mentary factors should be analyzed before proceeding. 

I also had an incorrect conception of the relative importance 
of the three factors to which I have referred already. If I had 
then been asked which of the three I considered of the greatest 
importance, I should have unhesitatingly, and without believing it 
possible that I was incorrect, replied that it was the Legal (the 
Patent Factor), for I had always considered it of supreme im- 
portance; whereas, in point of fact, I now realize that I was wrong. 

When I say, that in my opinion, it is the Commercial Factor, 
and not necessarily the Legal, which is of the greatest importance 
in predetermining success, I wish to add that I have arrived at 
this conclusion as the result of twenty-odd years of intimate rela- 
tions with Patents in their many legal and commercial phases. 

Conversely, if one truth more than another has been unalterably 
impressed upon my mind, it is that I feel absolutely positive that 
the Legal Factor (the Patent) is of the least importance, rather 
than the greatest, in a business based on Patents. 

In other words, that the arrangement of their relative values 
should stand. First, the Commercial; second, the Financial; and 
third, the Legal. 

In this position I stand at utter variance with Patent Attorneys 
as a class, if their opinion, as expressed in their literature and their 
conversation — in effect that the Patent is of supreme importance — is 
their true belief. My opinion is based on my combined legal and 
practical knowledge, whereas, the ordinary Patent Attorney has only 
the technical side upon which to base his opinion. 

Coming back to my story, it was this very vagueness to which 
I have referred — my inability to grasp the whole of the subject, 
or its different essential parts in any definite way — that added to 
my difificulties. 

In addition to my ignorance of the general principles just out- 
lined, I knew absolutely nothing about the Science of Manufactur- 
ing and Selling, for both have arrived at a point where they can be 
termed almost an exact science. 

I was unacquainted with manufacturing processes, which have 
so much to do with that important question, ''cost of production," 
which governs the possible profit of every article sold. 

I knew nothing about inaugurating a selling campaign, which 
includes the method of placing a product on the market, and the 
advertising which forms part of it. I hadn't the least conception 

19 



NOV 18 1913 



of the matter of "discount'^ and its relation to the retail price when 
sales were made to the jobbers and retailers. 

All such questions were those which should have been deter- 
mined before I commenced to do business, instead of after I had 
begun to sell my device. I never came in close relation to the broad 
financial question in selling my inkstand, as 1 had not arrived at a 
point in the manufacturing and selling problem where I was forced 
to consider it. I provided the finances for my first thousand; but 
sooner or later, had I gone on, I would have come to a point where 
I should have been obliged to have secured additional capital, as 
every small rnanufacturer does, who is obliged to buy for cash 
and sell on time. This soon locks up the resources of a small 
business. 

THE MORAL TAUGHT 

Summed up what moral does the story teach? 

(i) That Knowledge is Power. 

(2) That Ignorance and Unpreparedness Result in Almost 
Certain Failure. 

It suggests that every inventor should first secure an authentic 
working knowledge of Patent Law before he proceeds with the 
development of his invention, or makes an application for a Patent. 
He should acquire a knowledge of the pitfalls in the pathway of 
success, which the Patent Attorneys who hound an inventor to make 
a Patent application immediately — because of the fee there is in 
it for them — neglect to advise him are always present. He should 
acquaint himself with the fact that Trade-marks and Design Patents 
are closely related to Patents from the commercial standpoint, and 
acquire a knowledge of them and learn under what conditions it is 
well to secure the protection they furnish. 

He should ponder long and seriously on the matter of the dis- 
position of his Patent — whether to sell, license, or manufacture it. 
They are questions of momentous consequence, as the decision may 
govern the measure of success of his inventive effort. He should 
secure competent counsel to guide him in his procedure if he has 
not had sufficient experience to properly handle the various legal 
and practical problems which will arise. 

A false step at the beginning may wreck a good prospect. 

/ close with this admonition: 

Submit your invention to these three primary tests, (i) Is it 
original? (2) Is it needed? (3) Can it be sold and produce actual 
profit, that is, after all expenses of doing business are deducted? 
Remembering always, that from your own standpoint, the question 
is not Can I get a Patent, but Should I take one? 

Lastly. If after careful analysis and mature judgment, based 
on every particle of knowledge you can get anywhere, you believe 
you should take one, MAKE — HASTE — SLOWLY. 

A GOOD MAXIM 

Many men know how to start a thing, but few know how to 
keep it going. 



20 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 973 4 



92 



